Last night at Smitty’s Bar and Grill in Whitianga I joined David Bennett (National) and Catherine Delahunty (Green) on the TV show Back Benches.
One of the issues we discussed is the potential mining of land protected because of its high conservation value under Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. The Government is undertaking a stocktake of this land which includes all DOC land, coastline and most offshore islands north of the Kopu-Hikuai Rd in the Coromandel. On November 27 Gerry Brownlee indicated his view that mining should be allowed in this currently protected land in the Coromandel.
I, like many others, believe the Coromandel is one of the most beautiful and environmentally significant parts of New Zealand. The peninsula includes a vast array of different environments from mountains to the coast. The natural environment is a major drawcard for tourists and a major factor in local residents’ quality of life. Mining would potentially threaten the mountains, coasts, islands, water catchments and native forests that make this area the special place that it is. All mining- underground or opencast has negative impacts. Gold mining which is what is of interest in the Coromandel has consequences such as hazardous waste, damage to unstable areas, water pollution, impact on the landscape (even underground mines require roads), damage to habitats of native fauna and flora not to mention the disruption of noise, vibration and heavy truck movements.
In relation to economic development in places like the Coromandel it is important to compare the value of mining to that generated by tourism. Across New Zealand the figures are $1.6 billion versus $21 billion. Tourism relies on the preservation of the natural environment.
At Back Benches last night there were many people wearing Tshirts with the slogan ‘The Coromandel is too precious to mine’. They are members of the Coromandel Peninsula Watchdog. I want to acknowledge the determination and commitment of this group which has fought to protect the Coromandel for 25 years, as they say “to ensure the unique wilderness heritage that the Coromandel offers is not lost to the short term exploitation of minerals”. This National government has certainly got Watchdog members understandably worried and on alert.
Of course it is not just the Coromandel threatened by this review of Schedule 4.
As we count down to 2010 it may be worth thinking about the things that are precious to us as New Zealanders. In my uninterrupted 30 seconds Last Word last night I spoke of the Government’s plans to destroy our world class no fault ACC scheme. This important piece of our social infrastructure is too precious to become a privatised insurance scheme.
What does this National Government value?
Does this include land that is currently under Waitangi tribunal claim and if it does what are the implications for Hapu & or Iwi claims?
$$$$$$$$$$$ to your rhetorical question.
They should leave our habitats alone.
They might try and bribe them off like they did with the ETS.
Hell, I could become a very wealthy leftie lol
well they’ll need a lotta cash to bribe me
they wouldn’t have enough in the bank!!!
The South Island is more environmentally significant.
It’s Brownlee, not Brownley.
And it’s Delahunty, not Delahuntey.
I would love to know where people would accept the following:
1/ oil exploration
2/ mining for whatever
3/ more hydro power
4/ placing of turbines for wind power
5/ generators for wave power
6/ Nukes .. someone has tried to say the Nats want nuke power stations in both Is (god knows where that came from).
7/ new highways/byways/rail tracks.
You see, we are a country of NIMBYs who want to improve our access to oil, our wealth, our power supply, our transport etc BUT!!!!!!!!
HI J, abba
Wave generators at ugly beaches, the unswimable ones etc. 
Oooh, Wind turbines at sewage treatment plants
Thanks Gooner. I have corrected Delahunty and Brownlee.
I wonder how much consideration they will place on National consistently and convincingly winning the electorate vote in Coromandel in general elections??
I wasn’t being the spelling police, just thought you might want to correct it.
Hi people can join the ‘coromandel watchdog’ ‘ Hands off Mt Aspiring NP ‘(national park)or ‘no mining in national parks’ facebook groups for updates.
spud is the only one on this post and indeed on any other medium who has made a suggestion .. even if he may have been joking.
Carol .. can you give an answer to my questions as I’m dying to know what Labour think about our power, fuel, roading etc requirements for the future?.
jabba – I reckon your questions might be a topic for another post – this one is about whether mining in national parks would be acceptable. I think it is unacceptable.
As to your question, there are plenty of places that are appropriate for 1 to 5, and 7. Being a fan of distributed generation, I think most of NZ is suitable for small scale power plants. I probably don’t need to tell you that there are planning processes that determine whether a location and landuse is acceptable, on an individual basis. Most of the time these processes come up with outcomes that I agree with.
I don’t think there is anywhere in New Zealand that is suitable for nuclear power.
The point with gold mining is that it adds almost nothing to the quality of life enjoyed by the public at large. Oil and power are priced according to their utilitarian/economic value, fluctuating with supply and demand, and directly add somerthing to everyones quality of life. Gold’s value is an accident of history, and most of it is simply re-buried in government reserve vaults in other parts of the world.
The utilitarian economic value of gold, based on supply/demand (ie jewelry, some electronics, catalytic converters etc) would possibly be less than silver or some other semi-precious metals.
Furthermore the value of mining to our overall economy is minute. In 2008 royalties were a whopping $3,920,000 (inc GST apparently, and no I havn’t missed a digit!). Overall mining contributes $1.8b to the national economy, much of which is spent on imported oil, plant, machinery and expertise. Compare this to the tourism industry which generates around $21b, most of which stays in the country, is spread up and down the country, and is infinately sustainable in a way that extractive industry is not.
Are we so niave as to damage some of our most iconic natural areas and take on environmental costs for generations to come
for the benefit of a few individuals and foreign powers?
I can’t help but draw a parallell with primitive tribes, in which a few individuals swap swathes of land for beads and beer, and a few generations later wondering how they got into such a mess!
Those guys must be laughing all the way to the bank with our ‘free for removal’ gold.
I have an idea, let them mine our national parks, and then in the tunnels they make we can put our cows to live underground in their own filth, cos goodness knows that we can’t let cows out in the rain, it might make their meat soggy.
Then we can show the tourists how the Lord of the Rings REALLY ended.